Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
Haryana Urban Development Authority ... vs Smt. Santosh Gupta Wife Of Shri Kamal ... on 9 May, 2012 cites

State Bank Of India vs M/S. B.S. Agricultural Industries(I) on 20 March, 2009

We subscribe to the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. Admittedly, the alternative plot was allotted to the complainant on 12.08.1998 and the instant complaint was filed on 07.06.2005 i.e. after about seven years whereas the limitation for filing complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) has been prescribed as two years. It has been settled in catena of judgments that if the complaint is barred by limitation, it cannot be entertained. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant on this ground is not maintainable. Reference in this case is made to case law cited as State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) =JT 2009(4) SC 191, wherein it has been held that:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 623 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Haryana and another case (Supra). In the instant case the complainant has deputed Raj Kumar son of Shri Anshi Ram, Resident of House No.105, Sector-17, Faridabad as her G.P.A. We have perused the G.P.A. on the record of the District Consumer Forum at page 37. The complainant has not disclosed her relationship with the G.P.A. Raj Kumar. Power of Attorney even authorizes the G.P.A. to transfer, sell, and mortgage etc the plot. More so, the complainant has not mentioned in the G.P.A. that she is not satisfied with the allotment of the alternative plot. Admittedly, the complainant is resident of Moga (Punjab) whereas the G.P.A. is resident of Faridabad (Haryana) where the plot is situated. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly reflect that this case is the lust of securing the plot by G.P.A. of his own choice who is a property dealer and this clever device of the complainant cannot be allowed to sustain. We, therefore, are of the view that once the alternative plot No. 638 Sector-45, Faridabad has been accepted by the complainant Santosh Gupta, cannot be allowed to take the other plot of the choice of G.P.A. for the reasons best known to them. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant through G.P.A. is not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1760 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005

While dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it is not disputed that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity, but at the same time it is to be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity is committed by the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned order which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law. Reference is made to the observation made by the Honble Supreme wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the words Sufficient Cause have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Honble Apex Court in case cited as State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. and others, 2005(3) SCC 752 has held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1149 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1